Page 1 of 1
Adverse Possession
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:24 pm
by land butcher
Housing tract in So Cal built in mid 1970s.
Woman (A) contacts me about a lot survey for the house she just bought.
Neighbor (B) having lived there an unknown number of years states "The wall is X ft onto my property and you can't touch it".
Unknown surveyor tells Woman (A) that (B) has given up the property on (A's) side of the wall thru adverse possession.
How many on here agree with the surveyor that B lost the property on A's side thru adverse possession?
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:18 pm
by BoundaryMan
I disagree that B lost the property on A’s side thru adverse procession. There are several requirements which must be met in order for property to gained by adverse possession; namely: 1) possession must be open & notorious. 2) possession must be actual. 3) must be continuous for statutory period. Must be hostile. 4) must be exclusive.
Finally you must prove said 4 items in court who has the final decision. It’s not an easy task to gain property thru adverse possession.
My 2 cents.
Neighbor B was right
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:20 pm
by LS 4722
Neighbor (B)... states "The wall is X ft onto my property and you can't touch it".
She says it's over line and it would be against the law to touch it (Remove) without a court order.
Unknown surveyor needs to keep his mouth shut..
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:14 pm
by Ian Wilson
Please read Government Code §323 and §325 for statutory conditions for AP.
Note that §325 requires proof of payment of taxes on the disputed area for a minumum of five years. This can be difficultto prove in a mapped subdivision.
While a wonderful tool to clear title, AP isincredibly poorly understood, even by those of who ought to know better.
What a pity that a surveyor with so poor a knowledge of the subject has now cause such great harm between neighbors.
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:16 pm
by land butcher
I believe there is one more requirement - person seeking adverse possession has to have paid taxes on the disputed land.
My response to her was "Adverse possession - dream on. not gonna happen". She doesn't want it anyway.
And it would require one lot to probably not meet required setbacks and/or minimum lot size.
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:13 am
by land butcher
Ian and I were typing the same thing at the same time.